Saturday, May 17, 2014

So for the second
consecutive year, I attended the Quinn Memorial Lecture at UBC. The talk was by Bren
Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience Ralph Adolphs entitled “The
Social Brain.” I was rather intrigued by the title and by the very
fact that it was another opportunity to flex my brain muscles on the
brain itself (self-reflexive or meta-learning, I suppose). For last
year's "mental gymnastics," please click here.

Adolphs introduced his
ideas by examining three ways we generally achieve knowledge. First,
we get information from our physical environment. We learn about the
world by observing what goes on around us and then draw our own
conclusions. So this information is dependent upon social factors,
and learning would occur by watching parents, teachers, friends and
classmates.

The second form of
knowledge is through our own minds. This may be linked to the first
one, yet it is the specific ways of arranging and interpreting the
input that makes it become knowledge that is unique to us. We do not
process all the
information around us, but rather what catches our eye or interest,
and then we add our own spin and understanding to it.

In other words,
our brains are constantly active by creating links, background
stories or filling the blanks to understand the reasons and
motivations behind certain actions or situations. Imagine a piano
falling from the sky (my own example). We immediately make
assumptions on how and why this may have come about, perhaps
negligence on the part of movers, frustration on the part of a
composer or a young piano student, or maybe even an intended and
premeditated (admittedly artistic) plan for murder.

The third way is the minds
of others. At this point, I do not clearly remember what this part
was about, but I am filling in my blanks and assume that it must have
been about what others tell
us or what we read in books about the world. So this is a type of
filtered or “second-hand” knowledge based on observations of
others that we can incorporate and assimilate for ourselves.
Incidentally, all of these points were actually based on somebody
else's ideas who was acknowledged in a small footnote by the slide,
which my eyes could not fully make out, or I was simply too lazy to
jot down.

So much preamble (though I
believe interesting) to get to the main issue: the brain. Adolphs
showed us a simple and brief clip, the Heider-Simmel demonstration
from various years ago (1944 in fact!) depicting different geometric
sizes and shapes moving around a square (or something along those
lines). From it we immediately and automatically projected that the
larger triangle was a bully trying to push around the other triangle
and the circle, with both of the victims finally managing to escape
leaving the aggressive triangle to its own devices. In fact, this bully ends
up “punching” and breaking his abode in a fit of unchecked and
uncontrolled anger.

All of this feels like a kind of Rorschach test,
but one that was clearly visible
and comprehensive for those with “normal” brains since we tend to
humanize things and intuitively create a background story by giving
each of the shapes human motivations, reasons, and experiences.

Yet, in fact, patients
with autism do not necessarily see it that way. They merely summarize
the clip by saying that triangles and circles move around. There is
no storyline behind the whole situation. They do not connect or color
the incidents with everyday real life experiences as we tend to do.
To those patients, these were only geometrical shapes moving about
with no rhyme or reason. In a purely objective manner, they may be
right as our storyline is nothing but a projection onto mere facts,
namely random geometrical movements on a screen (more about this
below).

There were other studies
that examined people (and also animals) with lesions in their Amygdala
and their reaction to general fear-inducing stimuli. In the case of
one patient who was called SM, it appeared that she had no fear of
snakes or frightening horror clips. In a similar way,
chimpanzees with damage to their Amygdala did not perceive strangers
as a threat, nor even as interesting. It seems that most of our fear
is regulated by the Amygdala (although it is generally more complex
than that as the brain cannot be mapped alongside specific regions
but ought to be looked at as a connected and interactive network of
different parts working simultaneously).

What I found quite
interesting is that this is not merely a matter of a fight or flight
response, but that it includes social phobia as well. So people with
lesions in their Amygdala tend to have less social fear and
inhibitions. SM, for example, fully aware of social conventions,
would in real life situations disregard issues like personal space.
In one experiment she would go up and be so up-close and personal that
the experimenter felt uncomfortable, and then she even pinched his
nose! Asked about personal space or whether this was the correct
behavior in a given social situation, she showed complete rational
awareness and understanding that such behavior is inappropriate.

We can conclude that
without the Amygdala or with suppressed activity in this region, our
fears may be reduced. Although fear is a necessary instinct for
survival, it can also be redundant and counterproductive in social
situations. How many of us see certain fears as disastrous when they
are merely trifles and do not have serious tangible effects or
consequences. For example, the most common social fear would be the
fear of rejection and how many people have lost out on glorious
opportunities for romance and job advancement due to it.

Speaking of which, I was
keen on asking a couple of questions in the allotted question period
at the end of the talk. Both of them were about the perception of
reality of so-called “abnormal” brains. I was wondering whether
their perception might not be more accurate than ours. In terms of
those geometrical shapes, are we not superimposing our own
experiences over the fact that they were nothing but shapes and lines
moving randomly, as was the observation of the autistic person?

And secondly, is not most
of our learning socially contingent? Are we not expected to give
specific answers to certain situations? For example, an autistic
person would feel confused over trivial questions like “Where do
you live.” They would struggle with a clear answer because the
answer may be Canada, the universe, planet Earth, Vancouver, a
specific street or an exact address, a building complex or an
apartment unit ad infinitum. So, in fact, this is a really complex
question that we are socially programmed to answer only a certain
way. But looking at it in a literal fashion, the question is rather
ambiguous and confusing.

Now I had to overcome my
own Aygdala activity to raise my hand and one of the two people with
mikes finally saw me and walked in my direction. After I had finally
conquered my (illogical and unreasonable) social fear and was about
to pose my question, which I found both interesting and relevant, I
was suddenly cut off by the organizer. He simply stated that the Q &
A session was finished and that the Reception would now take place. I
was devastated and angry and was not able to find an answer to my
question. In fact, little after, I left the premises as I could not
spot Adolphs anywhere to ask him in person.

This incident did color my
perception of this talk and hued it in somewhat displeasing shades.
It bothered me that I was not given the opportunity to ask
my question. But somehow, to pacify this obsession of mine, my
brain decided to recreate the same talk in my dream that same night.
There the organizer came back after the reception and told us that
they had an extra five minutes for more questions from the audience.

So I raised my hand and
was called upon. I asked both of my questions and awaited the answer
with eagerness. But it seems that my brain scolded me. Adolphs
thought my questions of no relevance, even redundant and naive, and
simply dismissed them without a clear response.

Although
disappointed with the outcome even in my dream state, I ended up
getting some satisfaction of getting that off my chest. What the real
answer to these questions are remains a mystery still, that is, unless Adolphs
happens to read this and leaves me a comment here, or unless I have
another dream, but this time around have my question answered.

2 comments:

hi Arash-- thanks for your comments on this, which I somewhat randomly just stumbled upon on the web. Since I'm the person you're writing about, I'm quite keen to erase that bad dream you described at the end! Your questions are actually right on target and I'm sorry you weren't able to ask them in person.

To quote your questions, you asked;"Speaking of which, I was keen on asking a couple of questions in the allotted question period at the end of the talk. Both of them were about the perception of reality of so-called “abnormal” brains. I was wondering whether their perception might not be more accurate than ours. In terms of those geometrical shapes, are we not superimposing our own experiences over the fact that they were nothing but shapes and lines moving randomly, as was the observation of the autistic person?

And secondly, is not most of our learning socially contingent? Are we not expected to give specific answers to certain situations? For example, an autistic person would feel confused over trivial questions like “Where do you live.” They would struggle with a clear answer because the answer may be Canada, the universe, planet Earth, Vancouver, a specific street or an exact address, a building complex or an apartment unit ad infinitum. So, in fact, this is a really complex question that we are socially programmed to answer only a certain way. But looking at it in a literal fashion, the question is rather ambiguous and confusing."

Well, here are my answers:

I think you are exactly right! In particular to such complex social stimuli, there is no "right" or "wrong" answer, and what is considered "normal" as a response is certainly dependent on a particular time and culture. Indeed, for the Heider & Simmel video, one could turn the findings around and describe the "normal" response a kind of social illusion (like anthropomorphizing, seeing faces in clouds, etc., something we do all the time) to which S.M. is immune.

You mention of autism is also very apropos-- we actually study high-functioning adults with autism in my lab, and not because we want to "cure" autism, but rather because we wish to understand how they see the world, and through that, better understand how we ourselves all see the world somewhat differently.

Anyways, great questions and you pretty much supplied your answers yourself already. Sorry again we didn't have a chance to chat in person after the talk. Keep up the interesting work on your blog!

Cheers,-Ralph

Ralph AdolphsProfessor of Psychology and NeuroscienceCalifornia Institute of Technology

Thank you so very much for your detailed and uplifting answer and for saving me from any future dreams / nightmares concerning the matter! It was a shot in the dark as my last line demonstrates, but I am more than happy that you ended up landing and commenting on my blog!

Of course, I am also very pleased to have you agree with me on these issues! This experience now has much bettered my perception and memory of your talk, which, by the way, regardless of my disposition, was erudite and of excellent quality!

Google Website Translator Gadget

Goodreads

A simple and straightforward overview of psychoanalysis with a focus on child psychology. Anna Freud's style is clear, compassionate and engaging.
I was quite interested in learning about the differences between the psychoanalytic treat...

Each / either field (Zen Buddhism / Psychoanalysis) is fascinating on its own terms but one day I felt that they were intimately and intricately connected and that turns out to be true! Although the book as a brief and general survey mer...